Andrew Stones
Biographic Data
| ID | 3087590 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Andrew Stones |
| GIVEN NAMES | Andrew |
| FAMILY NAME | Stones |
| SIGNATURE | STONES A |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Mississippi |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-4683-8119 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 18 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 91 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 18 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1989 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 5 |
Depictions of Partisan Bias at Oral Argument and Public Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court relies on public goodwill for its authority, yet its decision-making processes are often hidden from the public eye. Media coverage of oral arguments in prominent cases provides an opportunity for Americans to assess how the Court carries out its procedures. Using a survey experiment conducted around the oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson , we show that depictions of partisan bias by the justices in their oral argument question…
Do the Audio and Video from Public Hearings Impact High Court Legitimacy
Judges may express underlying political preferences when speaking that can only be captured with audio and not text. Yet, it is unclear if audio or video recordings of judicial proceedings shape high courts’ legitimacy differently than written transcripts. We address this question with two survey experiments using short, real-world case excerpts from the US and UK. In sum, we do not find evidence that the method of delivery is associated with eva…
“Big River People”: Human-Nature Interactions in the Mekong and Columbia River Basins
The Mekong and Columbia Rivers are a world apart. Yet rivers instantiate and manifest critical ecological relations. This paper draws on qualitative interviews, community dialogues, historical documents, and ceremony-based encounters to examine political practices among "big river people'' in the Mekong and Columbia River basins. It interprets participants' narratives and actions as expressions of ontological politics, i.e., contestation of impos…
Communicating the Politics of the Law: Legal and Legislative Rhetoric About High Court Decisions
Politicians engage in messaging in attempts to score points with their constituencies and, if possible, mobilize them in support of political outcomes. For members of the U.S. Congress (especially senators, who have a constitutionally designated role in staffing the U.S. Supreme Court), major court cases provide an ideal opportunity for this behavior. In this paper, we examine when senators communicate with the public about salient Court cases an…
Ideological Cues, Partisanship, and Prejudice Against LGBTQ Judges
How does the gender and sexual identity of a prospective judge shape public support for their nomination? We build upon recent scholarship on instrumental inclusivity and argue that, after accounting for nominee ideology, Americans of all partisan stripes will penalize LGBTQ nominees. Using a conjoint experiment, we randomly vary a prospective Biden US Supreme Court nominee’s gender and sexual identity. Crucially, we also randomize the nominee’s …
Geographic representation and requests for federal funds in the U.S. senate
An essential component of a representative's job centers on deciding where to allocate scarce resources. How do legislators attempt to allocate spending across the geographic units of their constituencies, and what determines a legislator's success in securing these resources? To answer these questions, we create a new dataset of all earmark requests made by U.S. senators in the 117th Congress. This data was recently made available as part of ref…
Elections Improve Support for State Trial Court Judges in the United States
Do constituents care how judges are chosen? We conduct two nationally representative survey experiments focusing on state trial courts. Our first study indicates that respondents prefer judges who are elected to those who are appointed, though this does not affect their perceptions of the judiciary’s legitimacy. Our second study explores three potential mechanisms: efficacy, experience with democracy, and perceived ideological proximity. We find …
The American public's attitudes over how judges use legal principles to make decisions
We investigate the American public's attitudes over an integral component of judicial behavior: the legal principles judges employ when making decisions. Our theoretical perspective argues that political preferences shape individuals’ attitudes over how judges apply legal principles, mirroring ideological divisions expressed by political elites and judges. Using an original battery of questions, we find high support across all Americans for the u…
Promoting a Diverse Bench: An Analysis of Elite Messaging About Descriptive Representation
Existing work documents how senators use their official communications to explain their Washington activities and build support in the district. However, relatively little remains known about how senators communicate about one of their most important constitutional duties—providing advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. In this paper, we investigate how senators discuss Supreme Court nominations with their constituents, focusing on one com…
The Political Determinants of Public Support for Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees
Despite increased political attention to instances of legislative obstruction in recent years, little is known about the public’s attitudes toward these procedural techniques. I evaluate these attitudes in the context of the last two decades of nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court with three complementary analyses. In the first, nationally representative survey evidence reveals an overriding political dimension to Americans’ attitudes over the u…
The Incumbency Advantage in Judicial Elections: Evidence from Partisan Trial Court Elections in Six U.S. States
Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees
Though the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees in the United States have gained increased political attention in recent years, relatively little is known about how they affect public opinion toward judicial nominees and courts. We evaluate these relationships in the context of race and gender using a conjoint experiment conducted during a recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. We find consistent evidence that Americans are more su…
How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court
Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and p…
Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication
Lithic agency, Scottish modernism, and the politics of nuclear war
This paper argues that entangledness with inorganic agency, particularly that of stone, not only speaks to recent object-oriented and ecocritical thought, but also marks a constitutional division within the UK, since ‘thing power’ implies a scepticism over the organic authority of an uncodified British constitution. The agency of stone undercuts the organicism of an eighteenth century understanding of natural law that can only understand the soci…
The Contextual Determinants of Support for Unilateral Action
Recent scholarship shows relatively low public approval for the president's use of unilateral powers, yet public attitudes are often susceptible to framing effects. We conduct a series of survey experiments to explore attitudes toward unilateral power while varying a range of contextual features, including the identity of the president, the unilateral tool used, the justification for the action, and the policy pursued. We find little evidence tha…
A singer at the fountain: Homage and irony in Ciconia's 'Sus une Fontayne
Journal Article A SINGER AT THE FOUNTAIN: HOMAGE AND IRONY IN CICONIA'S ‘SUS UNE FONTAYNE’ Get access ANNE STONE ANNE STONE Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Music and Letters, Volume 82, Issue 3, August 2001, Pages 361–390, https://doi.org/10.1093/ml/82.3.361 Published: 01 August 2001
Denial: A Clarification of Concepts and Research
How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court
Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and p…
Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees
Though the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees in the United States have gained increased political attention in recent years, relatively little is known about how they affect public opinion toward judicial nominees and courts. We evaluate these relationships in the context of race and gender using a conjoint experiment conducted during a recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. We find consistent evidence that Americans are more su…
Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication
The Contextual Determinants of Support for Unilateral Action
Recent scholarship shows relatively low public approval for the president's use of unilateral powers, yet public attitudes are often susceptible to framing effects. We conduct a series of survey experiments to explore attitudes toward unilateral power while varying a range of contextual features, including the identity of the president, the unilateral tool used, the justification for the action, and the policy pursued. We find little evidence tha…
The American public's attitudes over how judges use legal principles to make decisions
We investigate the American public's attitudes over an integral component of judicial behavior: the legal principles judges employ when making decisions. Our theoretical perspective argues that political preferences shape individuals’ attitudes over how judges apply legal principles, mirroring ideological divisions expressed by political elites and judges. Using an original battery of questions, we find high support across all Americans for the u…
Geographic representation and requests for federal funds in the U.S. senate
An essential component of a representative's job centers on deciding where to allocate scarce resources. How do legislators attempt to allocate spending across the geographic units of their constituencies, and what determines a legislator's success in securing these resources? To answer these questions, we create a new dataset of all earmark requests made by U.S. senators in the 117th Congress. This data was recently made available as part of ref…
The Incumbency Advantage in Judicial Elections: Evidence from Partisan Trial Court Elections in Six U.S. States
Elections Improve Support for State Trial Court Judges in the United States
Do constituents care how judges are chosen? We conduct two nationally representative survey experiments focusing on state trial courts. Our first study indicates that respondents prefer judges who are elected to those who are appointed, though this does not affect their perceptions of the judiciary’s legitimacy. Our second study explores three potential mechanisms: efficacy, experience with democracy, and perceived ideological proximity. We find …
Promoting a Diverse Bench: An Analysis of Elite Messaging About Descriptive Representation
Existing work documents how senators use their official communications to explain their Washington activities and build support in the district. However, relatively little remains known about how senators communicate about one of their most important constitutional duties—providing advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. In this paper, we investigate how senators discuss Supreme Court nominations with their constituents, focusing on one com…
Denial: A Clarification of Concepts and Research
Denial: A Clarification of Concepts and Research
A singer at the fountain: Homage and irony in Ciconia's 'Sus une Fontayne
Journal Article A SINGER AT THE FOUNTAIN: HOMAGE AND IRONY IN CICONIA'S ‘SUS UNE FONTAYNE’ Get access ANNE STONE ANNE STONE Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Music and Letters, Volume 82, Issue 3, August 2001, Pages 361–390, https://doi.org/10.1093/ml/82.3.361 Published: 01 August 2001
The Contextual Determinants of Support for Unilateral Action
Recent scholarship shows relatively low public approval for the president's use of unilateral powers, yet public attitudes are often susceptible to framing effects. We conduct a series of survey experiments to explore attitudes toward unilateral power while varying a range of contextual features, including the identity of the president, the unilateral tool used, the justification for the action, and the policy pursued. We find little evidence tha…
Words Speak Louder than Actions: Public Responsiveness to Elite Communication
Lithic agency, Scottish modernism, and the politics of nuclear war
This paper argues that entangledness with inorganic agency, particularly that of stone, not only speaks to recent object-oriented and ecocritical thought, but also marks a constitutional division within the UK, since ‘thing power’ implies a scepticism over the organic authority of an uncodified British constitution. The agency of stone undercuts the organicism of an eighteenth century understanding of natural law that can only understand the soci…
Descriptive representation and public support for Supreme Court nominees
Though the demographic characteristics of judicial nominees in the United States have gained increased political attention in recent years, relatively little is known about how they affect public opinion toward judicial nominees and courts. We evaluate these relationships in the context of race and gender using a conjoint experiment conducted during a recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. We find consistent evidence that Americans are more su…
How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court
Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and p…
The Incumbency Advantage in Judicial Elections: Evidence from Partisan Trial Court Elections in Six U.S. States
The Political Determinants of Public Support for Obstruction of Supreme Court Nominees
Despite increased political attention to instances of legislative obstruction in recent years, little is known about the public’s attitudes toward these procedural techniques. I evaluate these attitudes in the context of the last two decades of nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court with three complementary analyses. In the first, nationally representative survey evidence reveals an overriding political dimension to Americans’ attitudes over the u…
Geographic representation and requests for federal funds in the U.S. senate
An essential component of a representative's job centers on deciding where to allocate scarce resources. How do legislators attempt to allocate spending across the geographic units of their constituencies, and what determines a legislator's success in securing these resources? To answer these questions, we create a new dataset of all earmark requests made by U.S. senators in the 117th Congress. This data was recently made available as part of ref…
Elections Improve Support for State Trial Court Judges in the United States
Do constituents care how judges are chosen? We conduct two nationally representative survey experiments focusing on state trial courts. Our first study indicates that respondents prefer judges who are elected to those who are appointed, though this does not affect their perceptions of the judiciary’s legitimacy. Our second study explores three potential mechanisms: efficacy, experience with democracy, and perceived ideological proximity. We find …
The American public's attitudes over how judges use legal principles to make decisions
We investigate the American public's attitudes over an integral component of judicial behavior: the legal principles judges employ when making decisions. Our theoretical perspective argues that political preferences shape individuals’ attitudes over how judges apply legal principles, mirroring ideological divisions expressed by political elites and judges. Using an original battery of questions, we find high support across all Americans for the u…
Promoting a Diverse Bench: An Analysis of Elite Messaging About Descriptive Representation
Existing work documents how senators use their official communications to explain their Washington activities and build support in the district. However, relatively little remains known about how senators communicate about one of their most important constitutional duties—providing advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. In this paper, we investigate how senators discuss Supreme Court nominations with their constituents, focusing on one com…
Depictions of Partisan Bias at Oral Argument and Public Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court relies on public goodwill for its authority, yet its decision-making processes are often hidden from the public eye. Media coverage of oral arguments in prominent cases provides an opportunity for Americans to assess how the Court carries out its procedures. Using a survey experiment conducted around the oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson , we show that depictions of partisan bias by the justices in their oral argument question…
Do the Audio and Video from Public Hearings Impact High Court Legitimacy
Judges may express underlying political preferences when speaking that can only be captured with audio and not text. Yet, it is unclear if audio or video recordings of judicial proceedings shape high courts’ legitimacy differently than written transcripts. We address this question with two survey experiments using short, real-world case excerpts from the US and UK. In sum, we do not find evidence that the method of delivery is associated with eva…
“Big River People”: Human-Nature Interactions in the Mekong and Columbia River Basins
The Mekong and Columbia Rivers are a world apart. Yet rivers instantiate and manifest critical ecological relations. This paper draws on qualitative interviews, community dialogues, historical documents, and ceremony-based encounters to examine political practices among "big river people'' in the Mekong and Columbia River basins. It interprets participants' narratives and actions as expressions of ontological politics, i.e., contestation of impos…
Communicating the Politics of the Law: Legal and Legislative Rhetoric About High Court Decisions
Politicians engage in messaging in attempts to score points with their constituencies and, if possible, mobilize them in support of political outcomes. For members of the U.S. Congress (especially senators, who have a constitutionally designated role in staffing the U.S. Supreme Court), major court cases provide an ideal opportunity for this behavior. In this paper, we examine when senators communicate with the public about salient Court cases an…
Ideological Cues, Partisanship, and Prejudice Against LGBTQ Judges
How does the gender and sexual identity of a prospective judge shape public support for their nomination? We build upon recent scholarship on instrumental inclusivity and argue that, after accounting for nominee ideology, Americans of all partisan stripes will penalize LGBTQ nominees. Using a conjoint experiment, we randomly vary a prospective Biden US Supreme Court nominee’s gender and sexual identity. Crucially, we also randomize the nominee’s …
Politics (13 works) · Political science (11 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (10 works) · Law (10 works) · Law (9 works) · Electoral Systems and Political Participation (8 works) · Supreme court (7 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (6 works) · Psychology (6 works) · Public opinion (6 works)